Author
Topic: Is the 8-15 fisheye on FF a good replacement for the 10-22 on a crop (Read 2709 times)

I currently have the 10-22mm on a 550D, but will be upgrading to a 5dmk3 at some point this year.

My question is that I do alot of landscape shots while hiking (though without a tripod). I know that I can't use the 10-22 on the 5d, but was wondering if the 8-15 fisheye might be a good FF replacement for the 10-22mm. Looking over my stats in LR for the 10-22 lens, i find that over half the pictures are at 10mm and alot of the times i wish it was a little more wide. I personally like the distortion on the 10-22mm but if it was a little stronger, I'm sure I would like it. Hence why I started looking at the fisheye. I figured anytime the distortion is not what I wanted, I could just apply the lens profile in LR, though I realize it will result in some cropping of the picture.

I'm just starting out in photography, but it seems that the 16-35L is an ok lens, but not an amazing lens like the fisheye or the 10-22. Long term, I would probably get the 14-30L lens (if Canon ever decides to make one), but think in the short term i could get away with just the fisheye. Oh, one last thing, the fisheye is $600 USD cheaper than the 16-35L in Japan, which is also a factor.

So my question is, does this logic seem sound, or is the 8-15 a really niche lens that won't really fill the gap of the 10-22 for purposes of hiking and landscape shots.

It's a brilliant lens but I am not sure landscape shots would be suitable for its niche market, after all the distortion is quite noticeable, even at 15 mm. A TS-E lens would probably be a better landscape lens, but manual focus only, more expensive and a has a steeper learning curve.

...is the 8-15 a really niche lens that won't really fill the gap of the 10-22 for purposes of hiking and landscape shots.

I'd say it's a niche lens that won't fill the gap of the 10-22mm. I would not buy a fisheye lens with the intent to de-fish the images - not only do you lose a fair bit of the AoV, you soften the corners pretty badly (maybe even making them worse than the 17-40mm wide open).

The 16-35L II is a fine lens, more barrel distortion than the 10-22mm, but overall the combination of 16-35 II w/ a FF sensor will deliver better IQ than the 10-22mm w/ an APS-C sensor. If you want wider, conside the 14mm f/2.8L.

If cost is a big issue, I'd get the 17-40mm for landscape shots - stopped down to f/8 or narrower, it's not much different from the 16-35 II.

Hey, I would not choose the 8-15 for the landscape shots either. I do shoot a lot of landscape and my personal recommendation, for the price, would be the 17-40L. Some buy the 16-35L but why? My landscape shots are at f/8 and narrower. However, I do own the 16-35L because I use it for other things, such as very low-light, tight room indoor shots. With landscape photography, I was shooting with a 24 and 35 prime, but the zoom lens offers me much more convenience and flexibility. I think if you want to only use it for outdoor landscape, 17-40L is YOUR lens.

Just though I'd add in an extra option, fwiw.There are two Sigma 12-24 lenses, both work on FF, and both are probably the widest you can get of any lens on any (non-dedicated-panoramic) system. The mk1 version somehow manages to have almost no barrel distortion (well, a lot less than anything in the same focal length). The mk2 just came out last year, and is a lot sharper than the mk1, but has a lot more barrel distortion.If you can put up with the barrelling of the 10-22, you can easily put up with the mk2 Sigma (at 12mm it's not much worse than the 17-40 at 17mm, at 17mm it's practically square). Resolution-wise for same-length-same-aperture, it's probably as good if not better than the 17-40, plus it goes a whole lot wider.Also, it's only $100 more than the 17-40 (currently on sale for $874 at B+H). 17-40 is $780, 16-35 II is $1590.

briansquibb

Just though I'd add in an extra option, fwiw.There are two Sigma 12-24 lenses, both work on FF, and both are probably the widest you can get of any lens on any (non-dedicated-panoramic) system. The mk1 version somehow manages to have almost no barrel distortion (well, a lot less than anything in the same focal length). The mk2 just came out last year, and is a lot sharper than the mk1, but has a lot more barrel distortion.If you can put up with the barrelling of the 10-22, you can easily put up with the mk2 Sigma (at 12mm it's not much worse than the 17-40 at 17mm, at 17mm it's practically square). Resolution-wise for same-length-same-aperture, it's probably as good if not better than the 17-40, plus it goes a whole lot wider.Also, it's only $100 more than the 17-40 (currently on sale for $874 at B+H). 17-40 is $780, 16-35 II is $1590.

Just though I'd add in an extra option, fwiw.There are two Sigma 12-24 lenses, both work on FF, and both are probably the widest you can get of any lens on any (non-dedicated-panoramic) system. The mk1 version somehow manages to have almost no barrel distortion (well, a lot less than anything in the same focal length). The mk2 just came out last year, and is a lot sharper than the mk1, but has a lot more barrel distortion.If you can put up with the barrelling of the 10-22, you can easily put up with the mk2 Sigma (at 12mm it's not much worse than the 17-40 at 17mm, at 17mm it's practically square). Resolution-wise for same-length-same-aperture, it's probably as good if not better than the 17-40, plus it goes a whole lot wider.Also, it's only $100 more than the 17-40 (currently on sale for $874 at B+H). 17-40 is $780, 16-35 II is $1590.

That reminds me, i bought a Nodal Ninja off ebay a month or two ago, and haven't even had a chance to play with it to even find the nodal point of my Samyang 35. I've done some horizontal Panos before, i even bought the Arca Swiss Monoball P0 for sweeping panos, so trying a full 360 is my next big task to play with.And i just got the Sigma 8-16, i'll have to compare that to stitching a pano as well one day...